对规范科学的不同治理风格的反思:对“负责任的研究与创新”的贡献。

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2015-01-01 Epub Date: 2015-08-11 DOI:10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y
Laurens Landeweerd, David Townend, Jessica Mesman, Ine Van Hoyweghen
{"title":"对规范科学的不同治理风格的反思:对“负责任的研究与创新”的贡献。","authors":"Laurens Landeweerd,&nbsp;David Townend,&nbsp;Jessica Mesman,&nbsp;Ine Van Hoyweghen","doi":"10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In European science and technology policy, various styles have been developed and institutionalised to govern the ethical challenges of science and technology innovations. In this paper, we give an account of the most dominant styles of the past 30 years, particularly in Europe, seeking to show their specific merits and problems. We focus on three styles of governance: a technocratic style, an applied ethics style, and a public participation style. We discuss their merits and deficits, and use this analysis to assess the potential of the recently established governance approach of 'Responsible Research and Innovation' (RRI). Based on this analysis, we reflect on the current shaping of RRI in terms of 'doing governance'.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":"11 ","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: a contribution to 'Responsible Research and Innovation'.\",\"authors\":\"Laurens Landeweerd,&nbsp;David Townend,&nbsp;Jessica Mesman,&nbsp;Ine Van Hoyweghen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In European science and technology policy, various styles have been developed and institutionalised to govern the ethical challenges of science and technology innovations. In this paper, we give an account of the most dominant styles of the past 30 years, particularly in Europe, seeking to show their specific merits and problems. We focus on three styles of governance: a technocratic style, an applied ethics style, and a public participation style. We discuss their merits and deficits, and use this analysis to assess the potential of the recently established governance approach of 'Responsible Research and Innovation' (RRI). Based on this analysis, we reflect on the current shaping of RRI in terms of 'doing governance'.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/8/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0026-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

在欧洲的科学和技术政策中,已经发展了各种风格,并将其制度化,以管理科学和技术创新的伦理挑战。在本文中,我们给出了过去30年最主要的风格,特别是在欧洲,试图显示其具体的优点和问题。我们关注三种治理风格:技术官僚风格、应用伦理风格和公众参与风格。我们讨论了它们的优点和缺点,并利用这一分析来评估最近建立的“负责任的研究与创新”(RRI)治理方法的潜力。基于这一分析,我们从“做治理”的角度反思当前RRI的塑造。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reflections on different governance styles in regulating science: a contribution to 'Responsible Research and Innovation'.

In European science and technology policy, various styles have been developed and institutionalised to govern the ethical challenges of science and technology innovations. In this paper, we give an account of the most dominant styles of the past 30 years, particularly in Europe, seeking to show their specific merits and problems. We focus on three styles of governance: a technocratic style, an applied ethics style, and a public participation style. We discuss their merits and deficits, and use this analysis to assess the potential of the recently established governance approach of 'Responsible Research and Innovation' (RRI). Based on this analysis, we reflect on the current shaping of RRI in terms of 'doing governance'.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1